Today’s guest post is by Jake. “It was on Thursday, July 20, one week after he left the hospital, that Antoine announced to his friends his plan to become stupid.” Martin Page, How I Became Stupid, 2001.
Recently a post that spoke about ‘Mormon Intellectuals’ said that intellectuals need to stop thinking about bringing ideas to church or how intellectual gifts can be consecrated to the church. As the post states:
“perhaps intellectual gifts, like most of what we bring to the altar, are not nearly as valuable as we think they are.”
The assumption that underlies this post is that being ‘intellectual’ is a gift from God. But sometimes I wonder if intellect is a gift at all. As a philosopher I question and think critically about things, but is this really a gift from God? Sometimes when I sit at church, my mind ploughing through all the questions and problems that I see, I can’t help but think that the ability to think critically is in fact a curse not a gift.
Over-Thinking
A book that covers this theme is How I Became Stupid by Martin Page. It narrates the story of Antoine who sees his superior intellect as being a curse that makes his life unbearable. Antoine assigns a deep moral value to everything that he does, sees, and says; as a result, he is tormented and depressed by his own self-awareness. He wishes to be a normal, everyday person who fits into society. For instance, he is paralysed by a yes/no survey form because he believes that such questions are not as simple as they look, and that he must critically analyse each question. Antoine becomes convinced that the source of all his unhappiness is his intellect. As he says:
“Intelligence makes you unhappy, lonely, and poor, whereas disguising it offers the possibility of immortality in newsprint and the admiration of those who believe what they read.”
He decides to commit intellectual suicide and become stupid. Antoine first tries to become an alcoholic to deaden his mind, but he isn’t physically suited for that. Suicide doesn’t appeal — and his doctor refuses to perform a lobotomy. His doctor is, however, willing to prescribe Happyzac, with its “tranquilizing, antidepressant effect” which works for a while. Antoine avoids everything that has even a whiff of intellectual stimulation. He goes to McDonalds, a “symbol of the standardization of different ways of life” (as a French book this location has loaded meaning), and instead of part-time teaching work at the university, he takes a job as a stockbroker where he can escape intellectualism by embracing consumer culture.
Notwithstanding the pervasive snobbery and that the book breaks down into half-hearted generic narratives that seem to be a bad copy of Voltaire’s Candide, the central themes of intellect and critical thinking are worth further discussion.
Intelligence vs. Intellectual
Do we conflate intelligence with being an ‘intellectual? Perhaps an intellectual is not someone with greater intellect but someone who uses this intellect to think critically. Maybe Antoine’s problem was not his intelligence but his misuse of it in applying critical thinking to trivial matters. Intelligence is not the same as being intellectual; an intellectual, in my opinion, is someone who uses what intelligence they have to think in a certain way about the world.
Can We Shut It Off?
Antoine’s failure to become stupid begs the question whether it is possible to turn off our cognitive faculties in certain situations. Its easy to tell someone to stop thinking about a certain problem, but is that easy to do? Can we really demarcate certain fields as impervious to critical examination, and live without a niggling feeling of being inconsistent? Sometimes like Antoine I wish that I was not tormented by my questions that come from critical thinking. It might be nice to not be thinking: ‘You can’t really be that sure about that,’ ‘that’s historically inaccurate,’ ‘that is inconsistent and logically flawed,’ ‘but what does that cliché phrase really mean,’ ‘what’s beyond the metaphorical language’ and ‘which version of the first vision do you know is true?’ These questions seem more like a curse that prevents me from embracing the simplicity of the gospel. Perhaps I am just misusing my cognitive abilities.
Is Ignorance Bliss?
Sometimes I wish I was more ignorant and less conscious of the problems and questions related to the church so that I could function as a normal uncomplicated member. Maybe intellect is a Pandora’s Box that once opened cannot be closed, unleashing the bad and the good.
What do you think? Is the ability to think critically a blessing or a curse? How should we use our intellect in a church setting? Does it all come down to context and how we use it? Is there a difference between intelligence and critical thinking and is there a difference between a person with intelligence, and an intellectual? What are the advantages to avoiding critical awareness? Can it be done?
Wheat & Tares 
You don’t need to be “less conscious of the problems and questions related to the church.” You just need to find members who think the way you do. That might be easier if your ward wasn’t determined by your place of residence.
In David Sloan Wilson’s book “Darwin’s Cathedral” he draws an interesting distinction:
“Rationality is not the gold standard against which all other forms of thought are to be judged. Adaptation is the gold standard against which rationality must be judged, along with all other forms of thought.” And “It is the person who elevates factual truth above practical truth who must be accused of mental weakness from an evolutionary perspective.” And “…it appears that factual knowledge is not always sufficient by itself to motivate adaptive behavior. At times a symbolic belief system that departs from factual reality fares better.”
This I think opens up a whole new world for the religious intellectual. You don’t have to get too bogged down trying to figure out how each and every statement you hear in church is true. Rather, you can try to figure out how some beliefs are simply good things to believe no matter what the evidence for or against them might be.
This doesn’t have to be the bland claim that all religion isn’t true, just good. Rather, you can apply this rule piecemeal. Indeed, I might say that this is just what faith is, to believe something not because of the evidence for it, but because believing it is important to living a good life in some way. Atheists embrace this kind of faith as much as any religionist does. After all, what is the evidence that murder is evil? We don’t believe it because the evidence is persuasive, but because believing it is an important part of living a good life.
But isn’t the whole “important part of living a good life” the evidence that murder is evil?
I don’t mean to be critical (ignore the irony) but I feel like this is a little bit over-simplified. What we consider to be an “intellectual” has little or nothing to do with one’s intelligence and everything to do with one’s pride. It is the hubris that gets academics into trouble, not so much their thoughts or their critical thinking. Captious individuals aren’t disliked because they’re wrong, but because of their attitude. I’m pretty suspicious of anything that asks me to accept something as true without examining it. And I don’t think the church asks that of us.
Further, there is absolutely a way (besides prozac) to stop the critical wheels from spinning. Buddhists and other meditative spiritual practices have been doing it for millenia. Getting in touch with our self, in the current moment, can lead to a healthier, happier life. In the book “The Happiness Hypothesis” Haidt mentions meditation as one of the things that increases happiness. Additionally, in “The Mindful Way Through Depression” the authors describe getting in touch with the “being mode” of mind which naturally dispenses the “doing mode” of mind.
The big problem we have in the west (I think) is that we don’t have religions that teach us how to just be. They give us knowledge, and ask obedience, with a small helping of ritual. Downplay the knowledge and obedience, increase the ritual, and emphasize prayer as the mechanism by which one can be happier, less critical, etc. Religion should be good at helping us spiritually, not in presenting us with facts.
The bottom line is, I think you’ve thrown out the nuance in your post. Critical thinking is not bad, even in the church. Intelligence is most definitely a gift, as is learning, and education. Our inability to connect with our “being” selves is our problem. When not addressed explicitly through meditation it has to naturally emerge through ritual, faith, or even mysticism. But those things are dying in our culture. I think we need us some meditation in the church!
jmb275,
I don’t see how meditation and prayer stops one from thinking critically. Perhaps you could explain more as to the dynamics of this, as it could be argued that meditation is simply putting the thought process to sleep or putting your head in the sand to avoid it.
I don’t think you can simply say that what we consider intellectual is based on pride, as I know many people who are pridefull and think they know everything but no one considers them intellectual. I just fail to see how pride makes someone an intellectual as I don’t see the connection between the two. Certainly, people who are intellectual can have an arrogance about them ie. know-it-alls, but that’s not a universal truth or even necessarily connected.
Jeff G,
“We don’t believe it because the evidence is persuasive, but because believing it is an important part of living a good life.”
But how can you know what the good life is without evidence? Doesn’t the notion of goodness depend on some prior experience or persuasive evidence that it is a good way to live?
I did a post on this awhile back http://www.wheatandtares.org/2011/05/27/seeming-contradiction-%E2%80%9Cbut-to-be-learned-is-good-if-%E2%80%A6/
Critical thinking has nothing to do with “being critical.” One can apply the notion of using one’s intelligence to analyze and synthesize data and observation and still come out positive.
OTHO, the term “intellectual” is often used in the context to connote superior intelligence or advanced learning of which neither may be the case. It tends to be used to set apart individuals to an above average class to which they might not normally belong.
It’s generally a misnomer.
This post reminds me of the local bishop (adjacent ward, not mine) who was also my supervisor when I worked for LDS temple security. He started telling people that “my problem” was that I had too much education. He explained this profound observation with his own story, of how long, long ago, when he was heading for college in Southern Utah, his father sat him down, saying “Son, they’re gonna try to change the way you think!” Sure enough, after a couple semesters, this enterprising student noticed to his horror that education was making him think differently, and in his words, he “put a stop to that right then!”
“it could be argued that meditation is simply putting the thought process to sleep or putting your head in the sand to avoid it.” I don’t think that would be argued by anyone who has actually meditated. Meditation helps you realize that the voice in your head, your constant stream of thoughts, is not you. You are the person listening to that voice.
The point about intellectuals and pride to me refers to the idea that the root of all wisdom is awarenes that we don’t know. Intellectuals tout their knowledge as if it is wisdom. A truly wise person is not so confident.
I actually do think the kind of intellectualism described is a curse, not a blessing. It’s the misapplication of mind. It’s analysis paralysis and over-reliance on one mode of thinking. It’s a lack of balance, humility and creativity.
But to Nick’s point, there are those who see “intellectualism” as the root of all evil. It’s more the inability to find balance and humility or the misapplication of intelligence (analyzing trivial matters – losing perspective) that makes it a curse. As the Bible says, some people “strain at a gnat and swallow a camel.”
I think you guys are missing my point which is that there are good reasons for believing X which have nothing to do with the evidence for or against the truthfulness of X.
Some beliefs are good but not true in the sense that those who believe such false things will get by better. That was what Wilson was getting at: following the rules of liberal science and critical thinking is but one of many possible ways of engaging the world we live in and we have no reason whatsoever to believe that it is always the best way.
I agree with jmb275 and hawkgrrrl’s comments. Intellectualization is a psychological defense where reasoning is used to block dissonance. Meditation in many ways is the antithesis of intellectualization it idles conscious mental processing allowing one to hear their subconscious thoughts and Spirit to spirit communication.
“the root of all wisdom is awarenes that we don’t know”
I agree completely with this, but this again leads to this curse/blessing dichotomy. If you realise that in most things we don’t know, which is wisdom, its difficult to not end up in a sceptical heap saying well I don’t know for sure about anything. If in the end we don’t know, then everything becomes ambiguous, questionable, and to a degree uncertain, and herein is where its a curse. Realising the limitations of our minds, and how little we can know or be sure of brings everything into shades of grey and living in a world of grey makes it difficult to tell things apart. In a way its better when things where clearly defined and you mistakenly thought that you did know.
I must confess an ignorance on meditation, but I did wonder about this: “Meditation helps you realize that the voice in your head, your constant stream of thoughts, is not you. You are the person listening to that voice.” If my thoughts are not me, but I am listening to that voice, then how can God hold us accountable for our thoughts if they aren’t me?
Moderation and humility so often seems to be the cure for so many problems. Although being humble doesn’t help in a analysis paralysis.
Mental exhaustion often helps analysis paralysis because we become too tired to think so the answer seems to come to us in our sleep. We were over thinking the problem and exhaustion shut our thinker off allowing us to listen and consider. Meditation is a more sophisticated way to achieve this.
Jeff G,
I understand your point ie. whether or not the book of Mormon is literally true is a separate issue from the fact that believing it will make me a better person. My problem is how do you decide what is a ‘good reason’ over what would be a ‘bad reason’? SO belief X may be false, so how do you know if its good or bad reason to believe it?
I would agree with you one of the most pernicious falsehoods is that of the hegemony of liberal science and the notion that if you think ‘rationally’ or use their rules which define what is reasonable you’ll come to the truth. The use of reason and rational is a rhetorical trick used to make you think that their way of thinking is THE way of thinking about. So if you don’t think of it in this ‘one true way’ then you are irrational and unreasonable. Korihor does it in the book of mormon when he says it is ‘unreasonable to believe in Christ’ which is true only if you accept his definition of what is reasonable, otherwise its an vacuous statement.
“My problem is how do you decide what is a ‘good reason’ over what would be a ‘bad reason’?”
That is a fantastic question to which I can offer no conclusive answer. My point was exhausted once one gives up the idea that evidence and logic are the standards against which we can or should judge beliefs.
Obviously some lies are good (i.e. lying to the nazi looking for jews).
Other things are good to believe without strong supporting evidence (the future will resemble in some ways).
We should believe some claims that don’t even seem to be factual descriptions of the world.
I think what really matters is the practical consequences which follow in my life from holding each belief. Believing that God exists and that I will eventually be held accountable for all of my actions in this life is a good belief for which there isn’t much evidence. It leads to a fulfilling life. Running around claiming that morality is one big farce hoisted upon us by an outdated tradition (whether true or not) is not a good strategy for living a good life.
The advice that I’m trying to give is this:
You don’t have to dedicate your intellectual gifts to the sole purpose of figuring out how it can all be true. I wouldn’t expect it to all be true. A social institution like religion is more about organizing your life in practically effective ways, not figuring out what the objective truth is on any question. In my experience, finding out why people believe the things they do has more to do with why the belief is good, not why it’s true. In my experience, you can commit your intellectual gifts to that question and get FAR more interesting answers that aren’t near as frustrating either.
More succinctly, an economic or game theoretic analysis of religious claims yields far better fruit than a philosophical analysis.
What we consider to be an “intellectual” has little or nothing to do with one’s intelligence and everything to do with one’s pride
It can very much be that way. I went through a time period when I was profoundly disabled. My IQ dropped significantly, into the 145 range or so.
But I found that even at that reduced capacity, I spent a lot of time thinking, analyzing and considering things.
The key is “how” and “what” you spend your effort and your thoughts on, not whether you think.
One thing I did realize is that different ways and patterns of thinking consume different amounts of overhead or mental resources — yet are not necessarily superior (in fact, quite the contrary).
I’m still thinking about that.
Our strengths can become our weakness. Elder Dallin Oaks discussed this year ago.
I’ve found that whatever our array of gifts may be, we need to be willing to prioritize them and put faith in Christ first. Otherwise,our god will be whatever we put first.
“What we consider to be an “intellectual” has little or nothing to do with one’s intelligence and everything to do with one’s pride”
I think there is more to this claim that meets the eye.
I would suggest that social institutions embody within them a lot of decentralized intelligence which has evolved and survived the ever-present tendency toward dissolution by way of trial and error.
I don’t think it is that big of an over-generalization to suspect that many intellectuals will tend to think that inasmuch as this decentralized intelligence is not appreciated (by them or others) is must not be there. This, I propose, just is the pride of the intellectual.
Over course this coin of pride has two sides to it.
On the left, people who can’t see the intelligence in some institution will simply see it as the rotting remnants of tradition. Those on the right, however, might simply be unable to recognize that the context in which that decentralized intelligence was appropriate no longer exists. I suspect that the best, if not the only way to avoid both sides is to be a humble intellectual, a tall order if ever there was one.
“If my thoughts are not me, but I am listening to that voice, then how can God hold us accountable for our thoughts if they aren’t me?”
The ego in psychological terms (according to Freud) manages the id (passions, desires & instincts) and is managed by the super-ego (guilt, rules, and self-doubt); these three together constitute the mind. Most people think the ego is who they are. The ego is our mind working to reconcile those two and also to square them with reality; the ego is always partly in the position of justifying the id’s needs. Perhaps you could say in LDS terms that the id is the “natural man. The super-ego is “the commandments.”
In spirituality (especially Eastern meditative religions), the ego is viewed suspiciously because of this justification process. The ego is constantly fighting for its existence and does not live in the present. This is like when people say their mind is racing or they can’t empty their minds. That constant stream of internal monologue is often self-affirming gibberish, always focused either on the future or past, never in the present. One method to quickly quiet the mind and come back to the present is to realize you are not the monologue, but that you are listening to it.
Back to your original question: “how can God hold us accountable for our thoughts if they aren’t me?”: the LDS tradition isn’t a very deep individual spiritual one. Mormons talk a lot (especially to youth) about thoughts driving actions which form habits. But we don’t talk much about where the thoughts come from. Most of what we do at church is stoke the super-ego to keep people’s ids repressed. We don’t describe inner states very precisely. My best LDS answer to your question would be that you think what you think because you are becoming who you are becoming. You won’t be judged for your specific individual thoughts (like reading a transcript), but your reward will be based on who you are (who you have become). Being hung up on self-justification (whether in defense of the id or over-reliant on the super-ego) is not a very enlightened place to be.
Jared, I liked that comment.
I would note that the author of the referenced book sounds like someone who combines incredible arrogance with OCD behaviors and thinking patterns. I’m not certain I associate intellectualism with mental illness.
I’ll defer to Hawkgrrl’s answers to the questions about meditation.
I think there’s some conflation problems here. I didn’t say that all prideful people are intellectuals. Being prideful and being intelligence are separate issues. People can be poorly educated, and have low intelligence and still be prideful. And intelligent people, with a great amount of education, can be very humble. I agree with Hawk that wisdom seems to be an important key. Again, it’s the hubris that gets combined with intelligent individuals that we are wont to call “intellectual.”
I fail to see why being uncertain is a curse – or even a bad thing. Quite the opposite actually. There’s nothing worse than someone who is both ignorant and arrogant in their ignorance. Education, and knowledge should increase one’s awareness of all the nuanced details that they may not know. It should prevent one from making wild decisions or accusations. It should prevent someone from buying into nonsense, and it should make one more wise. Being uncertain about whether or not the BoM is historical (if that’s a concern for someone) is not a bad thing. It’s honest, and I suspect God will respect that honesty and understand it. I’m far more worried with people who seem to be so confident in their beliefs they’ve lost track of reality. Or at worst, kill people because of it.
By all means, critique and analyze the claims of the church. Many great Mormons scholars have said that Mormonism should stand up to intense scrutiny – and they believed it did. If you’re allowing your criticism to get in the way of your spirituality then I suggest you get a book on meditation and try to incorporate it into your life.
As for your question on holding us responsible for our thoughts if our thoughts are not who we are – I agree with Hawk. Our theology (like most christian theologies) just doesn’t have a lot on individual states of mind. I think it’s a serious weakness if we don’t augment our personal spirituality with some form of mindfulness. I think we try to get there with how we view the Spirit but it’s never really clear what the Spirit feels like, how it interacts with us, etc. Mindfulness has clear goals, clear techniques and is proven to make people happier.
Regarding my views on meditation (which are largely based on Eastern views):
We are all familiar with our five senses. For example – there is an object – say a blue car. Light bounces off the blue car. The car hits receptors in our eyes and is transmitted down neurons to our brain. Through past experiences, learning, etc., our mind puts together the pattern of colors we see and we know it’s an old blue Ford Escort. We generally don’t think about the process, but just that it’s a blue car.
Some people step outside the process and analyze the image more objectively. A photographer might critically examine the lighting on the car. A mechanic might notice a rust spot on the bottom. Etc.
The same thing happens with sounds, smells, etc. The sound is just a sound. It doesn’t resolve into a symphony or a baby crying or anything else until it’s perceived, and we can all perceive things differently.
In meditation, in addition to the five senses, we can watch our mind. We can see an endless stream of thoughts, emotions, etc. arise in our mind. We can see twinges of anger, for example. Based on our past experiences, we can latch onto an emotion and increase anger, for example. The goal of watching our thoughts is to realize that, just like photons that come into our eyes or pressure waves that come into our ears, the thoughts just come into our minds. We can make of them what we will.
It is powerful. As an example, suppose that someone with a pornography problem gets a brief thought of some image or something. Normally, they might follow this and act out on an impulse fairly blindly. They may struggle with “commandments” and “rules” and things designed to suppress the thought and urge. If they can instead just watch the thought arise, however, and then just watch it fall back away, it loses its power. The same with anger and sadness and many other undesirable things.
It does raise the question, however, as to “who” is watching the thoughts if it’s not “us”. An LDS viewpoint might be that it’s the spirit. A Buddhist viewpoint might be that it’s nothing. Nirvana isn’t really somewhere we “achieve” – it is a release from the cycle of pain and dissatisfaction that is associated with life. By realizing that we are not our thoughts, etc., the Matrix dissolves and we are free.
It’s hard to describe in one short (or long) comment – but that’s “who” is watching – no one.
this is the problem with religion in general. it trains people to be content with not understanding how the world works. critical thinking is NOT a curse. critical thinking has provided the world with machines, vaccines, and computers. we don’t need religions that say “i’m going to not explore this question (or worse, ignore this evidence) because it clashes with my belief about god.” we should embrace truth wherever it manifests. the lds church, of all religions, is poised to do this because they claim a living prophet.
don’t turn it off…. let it run wild! because desperately seeking and understanding truth really only ever stands to benefit the world.
Don’t sweat the small stuff. Don’t make mountains out of molehills. All critical thinking has to start with some assumptions. The critical part is to ensure that the assumptions are correct.
I start all of my assumptions based on a belief in God and the restored church. When I get to a point where there may be a conflict between observations and faith, I acquiesce to the greater intelligence.
If a person starts out with the assumptions that everything should be able to be determined by reason and if there comes a conflict between faith and reason, and faith loses, they will always be unhappy.
There are many very intelligent and intellectual people in the church in many disciplines, who do not have those conflicts because they start out with assumptions that include God and the church basic parts of their assumptions.
Glenn
Intelligence can be a curse, as can ignorance.
Intelligence can be a blessing, as can ignorance.
I believe the difference is in the application, not the existence – and I think it is the application that changes intelligence into intellectualism. (seing one’s self and understanding as superior simply because they are one’s own)
Intellectualism, imo, always is a curse – as it cannot be measured in isolation but rather must be embedded in comparison.
Please delete the “not” in the last sentence. I reworked the sentence and forgot to delete that word. The final sentence should read:
“Intellectualism, imo, always is a curse – as it cannot be measured in isolation but rather must be embedded in comparison.”
Just a thought on the notion of conflict of faith and reason. I tend to agree with William Hazlitt who said that ‘Reason with most people, means their own opinion.’ The conflict then becomes one of what is faith and what is an opinion that disagrees with it. One persons faith might be someone else’s opinion.
#24 Glenn When I get to a point where there may be a conflict between observations and faith, I acquiesce to the greater intelligence.
I think anyone would do this. The real issue is knowing exactly what “the greater intelligence” entails.
The Bible is replete with references to a geocentric universe and a flat earth. For centuries, this is what was accepted as the “greater intelligence”. Galileo and others contested this.
A modern prophet told us in 1961 that man would never set foot on the moon, and to write it down in our books. A prophetic statement is accepted by many in the LDS Church as the “greater intelligence”.
The D&C specifically tells us about the 6000 years of the earth’s temporal existence. A young earth is therefore the “greater intelligence” and has been taught as such by many prophets and apostles. This conflicts with science.
When there is a conflict, should Galileo have “acquiesced” to the “greater intelligence”? Was the moon landing faked? Are all of the points of data pointing to a earth in the billions of years age range (including hominids tens of thousands of years ago) wrong?
What is the “greater intelligence”? Just as sometimes science heads down dead-ends, our prophets and apostles are sometimes also “wrong”, as stated by Elder McConkie after he taught for years that blacks would NEVER have the priesthood.
So, to me, your statement means to decide ahead of time what a particular scripture means, flaunt scientific data that supports this, and ignore data that doesn’t. It is one way of looking at the world, but I would suggest it is flawed. I posted that this is an inside out paradigm . There are better ways of approaching it, as described in a series which I am working on about Science and Religion.
Any gift from God can be either a blessing or a curse, depending on how it is accepted.
Examples:
Laman and Lemuel conversed with an angel, but I don’t believe they considered that a blessing.
The children of Israel twice received quail in the desert- once as a blessing, once as a curse.
Pilate and Herod both met and conversed with Jesus.